On Wed, Jul 12, 2000 at 02:04:04PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: > Speaking as a maintainer of two libc5-compat libraries, I'd rather remove > them than keep them. Their only use (at least as long as I've been the > maintainer for libtiff3 and xpm4.7) was that they made me learn more about > how to write more complex makefiles. :) I don't even know if they work > correctly, as nothing links to them in Debian, I don't have any local > programs linked to them, and no users have reported anything about them to > me, ever. The status quo is unnerving. Ditto. I'll reiterate some things I've said elsewhere. * I will make no effort to support libc5 with XFree86 4.x or later. * I was going to keep XFree86 3.x around, but delegate its maintenance to someone else (Stephen R. Gore has volunteered and I accepted before he changed his mind >:-) ) for two reasons: to provide X server binaries for hardware that 4.x doesn't support yet, and to provide libc5-compat libraries. * If I won't have to support libc5 with the old XFree86 packages either, then that's great. We can prune the xfree86-1 3.x source tarball way down and greatly speed up package build time. XFree86 3.x would become about as easy to maintain as X can conceivably be (no libs, no clients, no fonts, just a few server binaries). I am in favor of dropping libc5 support from woody. -- G. Branden Robinson | A great work of art has never caused any Debian GNU/Linux | social problems. Social problems are firstname.lastname@example.org | caused by those trying to protect http://www.debian.org/~branden/ | society from great works of art.
Description: PGP signature